Difference between revisions of "Main Page"
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
! | ! | ||
− | <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> | + | <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Lions and Warriors</h2> |
|- | |- | ||
|style="color:#000;"| | |style="color:#000;"| | ||
− | ''By [[ | + | ''By Michele Ellington [[Tawnee Darkfalcon]]'' |
− | |||
− | + | This one is a history lesson on the award of the Lion and Warrior. | |
− | + | How ironic these statements are! I feel pressed to offer a little | |
+ | history lesson. When we first started the club, the only order | ||
+ | offered for fighting was the [[Order of the Lion]]. At that time, [[knights]] | ||
+ | had a very definite code of conduct, which was expected of them. Not | ||
+ | everyone in the club wanted to be a knight. The [[Corsairs]] and a few | ||
+ | others recognized and freely acknowledged that this code of conduct | ||
+ | was not for them, and did not even solicit Orders of the Lion. | ||
+ | However, it quickly became clear that some of these "mavericks" were | ||
+ | some of our best fighters. It was clearly unfair that there was no | ||
+ | way to make public note of their skills. So we invented the [[Order of the Warrior]]. It was intended that a fighter who earned ten Orders of | ||
+ | the Warrior would become a [[Warlord]]. A Warlord was to be the | ||
+ | equivalent of the Knight, but not bound by the code of conduct | ||
+ | expected of the knights. When [[tournaments]] were conducted, the | ||
+ | fighters were watched for both skill and conduct, and were awarded | ||
+ | Warriors or Lions as was deemed appropriate by the [[Monarch]]. At this | ||
+ | time, there was only one form of [[Knighthood]]. [[Roses]] attributed to | ||
+ | titles of [[nobility]], and [[Dragons]] were simply prestige [[awards]]. Time | ||
+ | passed. Some confusion evolved about the intended difference between | ||
+ | Warriors and Lions. An odd sort of dichotomy arose, wherein Lions | ||
+ | were almost impossible to earn, yet Warlord was the club's most | ||
+ | coveted title. In my opinion, this was the result of the fact that | ||
+ | most of the really skilled fighters were the "maverick" types, and | ||
+ | the Monarchs all but forgot the existence of Lions and what they | ||
+ | meant. Warlord was a separate title from Knighthood, but was no | ||
+ | longer regarded as its effective yin/yang opposite. Warlords won | ||
+ | [[Crown Tourneys]] and were also knighted. The intent of the creation of | ||
+ | the Warrior as an Order separate from the Lion fell away. The focus | ||
+ | became wholly skill based, with no real evaluation of attitude | ||
+ | included. Monarchs came and went. | ||
− | + | After a couple of years, the Monarch decided that Knighthood should | |
− | + | be broken into four belts: [[Sword]], [[Serpent]], [[Flame]], and [[Crown]]. To that | |
− | + | end, the Orders were all evaluated. The Order hardest hit was Lion. | |
− | + | The Monarch making the changes added Warriors as one of the Orders | |
− | + | contributive to Knighthood of the Sword. Then he broke the Order of | |
+ | the Lion into Lions for combat and Griffins for chivalry. Then the | ||
+ | persons holding Lions were subjectively reviewed, and decisions were | ||
+ | made about whether they were good enough fighters to hold that number | ||
+ | of Lions, or if some of those awards had been given for chivalry more | ||
+ | than combat prowess. Some players' Lions were converted to Griffins, | ||
+ | and, if I recall correctly, no longer contributed towards Knighthood | ||
+ | of the Sword. As combat had always been the focus of the club, | ||
+ | deleting combat orders to make them "orders of the nice guy", | ||
+ | read "orders of the chump" by the much acclaimed Warlords who weren't | ||
+ | expected to play fair, was hardly a compliment. So now you see the | ||
+ | irony of your reference to Griffins as a highly sought after and | ||
+ | scarcely offered award. | ||
+ | I am sorry we lost the dichotomy between Warlords and Knights. I | ||
+ | think that a lot of the problems we experience today with Knights | ||
+ | acting in unsportsman like and un-chivalrous fashions would be | ||
+ | alleviated if there were another Prestige Track available to those | ||
+ | who aren't truly "knightly stuff". I have mixed emotions about | ||
+ | whether the "code of knightly conduct" should be enforceable, for | ||
+ | right and wrong are ever subject to interpretation. But there was a | ||
+ | time when those who knew themselves to prefer a less "moral" set of | ||
+ | expectations were able to earn prestigious titles and awards for | ||
+ | their skill alone. With this option available, it was certainly | ||
+ | easier to argue that Knights should be expected to meet certain | ||
+ | behavioral requirements. | ||
|- | |- | ||
Revision as of 15:30, 10 November 2008
|
|